Hi Gluonz! I noticed your contributions to Computer security and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Would you please participate in the move discussion at Talk:Communist state. I already do know that you don't approve of the current name title. I don't really have anything against it, but people refuse to link to the proper page, which means that this title doesn't work at all. TheUzbek (talk) 13:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry, I had been looking at the discussion but I’d found it quite difficult so far to solidify a formal opinion on it. Personally, I think the title “Marxist-Leninist state” would be satisfactory,( I mainly opposed the existing title for the oxymoron,) though I can understand where you are coming from with your proposal. I can probably participate soon, once I’ve come to an opinion on the matter. Thanks! –Gluonztalkcontribs15:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer not to answer that as it may influence your opinion, which is more valuable from a neutral perspective. The user submitting the move request has shared a detailed rationale in favour for the move. Additionally, Masem also has submitted a counterproposal that is regularly mentioned. This may be the final move request and it appears that there might be a rough consensus for an article called X (social network) so I thought it appropriate to notify everyone. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻23:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gluonz, have no problems with your changes to the Lead of Soviet space program however you have broken multiple existing links in the references with your changes, hence I reverted your change. Unfortunately I do not have time to fix the links, if you can fix the broken links then would have no problem with you changes. Ilenart626 (talk) 02:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, fellow BSOD enthusiast! I saw you express a preference against using the term "IT" in the title, and I'm curious about your reasoning and thoughts on each alternative. If you don't mind, please weigh in by replying to this comment. Jruderman (talk) 20:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roblox Studio until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
The process will have a one week call for candidates phase, a one week pause to set up SecurePoll, a three-day period of public discussion, followed by 7 days of no public discussion and a private vote using SecurePoll.
The outcomes of this process are identical to making requests for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA or administrator elections.
Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. A separate user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.
To avoid sending too many messages, this will be the last mass message sent about administrator elections. If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
On October 25, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close again to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.
Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
In the voting phase, the candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies for a vote will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.
Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Can you make your signature slightly less eye-catching please. It would help if you remove the glow effect and / or make the background cover only your name without including the talk contribs next to it. Currently it looks too much like a warning notice, it's distracting when I see it appear on the edge of the page as I am scrolling to read other threads.
I appreciated your addition about the previous discussions under Joe Biden’s talk page—it adds important context to the conversation and shows how much thought has gone into this topic over the years.
If you have a moment, I would appreciate it if you would consider my argument regarding the "F" proposal. I believe this is an important discussion, and I’d like to hear your thoughts on it. Thanks again for your contributions. TimeToFixThis (talk) 03:57, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
George W's page says, "served as." Obama's page says, "served as." Where is the consensus that Biden's page should say, "was?" I don't know why it matters either way, but I don't see that consensus on the talk page. I do see, "served as" discussed for being used as an update on Jan 20. --Onorem (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody ever said that the Sunni section of the article Jihadism should be renamed as "Salafi jihadism" in the first place. Moreover, as I have already explained, the Shia section's title should be consistent with the main article Shia Islamism per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSISTENT policies. As you can see, there's no separate article titled "Shia jihadism", because such phenomenon doesn't even exist. The only movement close enough to resemble Sunni jihadism in the Shia world is Shia Islamism, not jihadism. GenoV84 (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The administrator elections process has officially started! Interested editors are encouraged to self-nominate or arrange to be nominated by reviewing the instructions at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/Candidates.
Here is the schedule:
July 9–15 - Call for candidates
July 18–22 - Discussion phase
July 23–29 - SecurePoll voting phase
Please note the following:
The requirements to run are identical to RFA—a prospective candidate must be extended confirmed.
The process will have a seven day call for candidates phase, a two day pause, a five day discussion phase, and a seven day private vote using SecurePoll. Discussion and questions are only allowed on the candidate pages during the discussion phase.
The outcome of this process is identical to making a request for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA versus administrator elections.
Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. A separate user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.
If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
On July 23, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close again to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's totals during the election. You must be extended confirmed to vote.
Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last approximately four days, or perhaps a little longer. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (you may want to watchlist this page) and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and must also have received a minimum of 20 support votes. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
In the voting phase, the candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies to vote will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's vote total during the election. The suffrage requirements are similar to those at RFA.
Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for approximately four days, perhaps longer. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (this is a good page to watchlist), and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and a minimum of 20 support votes. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
The RFC phase of the July 2025 administrator elections has started. There are 10 RFCs for consideration. You can participate in the RFC phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/RFCs.
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
I am writing to you because I have recently had the misfortune of encountering a series of mass page moves that you made without discussion. In each of these cases, you claim to have 'removed unnecessary disambiguation'. What you failed to realise is that all of these articles are child articles of Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present), with their scope limited to the period following the 2022 invasion. Per WP:CONSISTENT and WP:CONSUB, child articles should follow the naming scheme of the parent article. The parenthetical, in this case, is not mere disambiguation, but an integral part of the actual article title, clearly linking the child article with the parent.
I have spent a considerable amount of time cleaning up the mess you made by reverting all of your moves, mergers, and changes to article content. In future, if you would like to make mass changes to the titles and scopes of various articles, please discuss the changes first using the WP:RM and WP:PM procedures to attain consensus.
@RGloucester: Thanks for letting me know. You are correct that these disambiguators may be necessary to specify the scope of those articles if they are subtopics of the 2022–present war. However, the existing situation indeed falls under WP:MISPLACED, regardless of the specific reason for why parenthetical disambiguation is included. Any change to the content of the respective base titles would resolve this. For most of those articles, I decided that broadening of scope through moves to the base titles would be a straightforward fix. These were undiscussed moves, and alternatives such as retargeting and disambiguating exist, so I have no objection to your reverts. I have opened various RM discussions so that each case can be evaluated individually. I appreciate the time that you have taken to help with this issue. –Gluonztalkcontribs17:36, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but WP:MISPLACED is an essay, and WP:TITLECHANGES, which is a policy, makes clear that we should only move articles if there is a good reason to do so, not merely to enforce 'rules'. Wikipedia is a not a bureaucracy where 'rules' are applied without considering whether they produce a better result for the encyclopaedia, see WP:IAR. I have opposed all of your moves. Yours, &c.RGloucester — ☎23:48, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CommunityNotesContributor: My intention when opening a separate RM for each of these titles was to allow for each to be discussed individually rather than within the context of other titles for which differing arguments may exist. Retrospectively, I probably should have grouped together a majority of my nominations because many have nearly identical rationales. –Gluonztalkcontribs00:43, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
